Commenter Profile

a nominal Israel supporter until the '67 War when anti-Arab racism became so blatant that there was this Eureka moment that went something like "Damn, what a fool I've been". Ever since I've been a staunch pro-Palestinian anti-Zionist.

I was in West Beirut, August '82, as a volunteer with the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. The very first night there a car bomb exploded outside the apartment building I was visiting. We were on the 2nd floor, when suddenly, BOOM, the room shook,windows rattled, then silence, as the 5 of us, discombobulated by the ferocity of the blast, hunkered down, waiting to recover our wits. It took a while, each of us seemingly trying to make sense out of what happened, but the mind was temporarily out of order.

A couple days later, outside the hotel where I was staying, BOOM, and the above sequence all over again.

During that period there were almost daily reports of car bombs going off. While walking around Beirut I found myself wondering if this or that car carried a bomb that was about to go off. It was enough to give one PTSD.

The scuttlebutt was that any one of many organizations might be the culprit. From this article, though, Israel's FLLP has to be the number one suspect

"Netanyahu is ripping open a space of liberal doubt. A campaign for Palestinian rights can fill that vacancy,"

No it can't, for the simple reason that until Palestine is liberated from Zionist supremacism, any rights granted will at best be provisional and dependent upon the whims of the supremacists. But once their homeland is liberated, Palestinians will be free to attain their heretofore denied rights. And the author must know that liberation is not brought about by convincing, one by one, the undecided or wavering to stand up for the slave, but by ongoing collective struggle to smash his/her chains. Thus it was and is for black liberation here in America, as in most of Africa, not to mention women's and lbqt rights.

According to Israel's prime minister the IDF in its killing of peaceful protesters is doing holy work. Islamic terrorists such as Al-Qaeda also see their killing of innocents as holy work. Coincidence? Or birds of a feather....?

What a video clip! On edge, watching, waiting to see whether an IDF sniper would bring her down, seconds only, but seemingly interminable, then hearing the shot, down goes Nasreen, myself feeling terrorized, eyes watery, unbelievable, right in front of me, waving the Palestinian colors, an innocent woman has just been shot, this terror must stop must stop, makes me feel so helpless, what can I do, what can I do, oh that Nasreen survives!

Yes, but not only that we ditch Zionism, that we return to the not so long ago when concern for social justice and equality defined us. Task number one on this new agenda, our helping Palestinians attain justice, whereupon it's onward towards the long sought just and peaceful world of our dreams.

don't have faith in the sky woman thing, unless, that is, on turnabout day, unbeknownst to us mere earth mortals, She will be pulling the strings that move the 99% of us earth mortals to suddenly come to our senses and declare "can't take the way it is no more", after which sky woman again pulls on the strings so as to get us to rise up and do whatever needs to be done to change the world. Believers, of course will credit the sky-woman for the turnabout (working as she supposedly does in mysterious ways) but so long as the job gets done, whether human-made or god-inspired, will this really matter?

"Jewish migrants/Israelis had been traumatizing Palestinians for close to 100 years before."

So if not from trauma alone, how to explain the Jewish settler-state's oppression of Palestinians?

Colonialism - acquiring control of another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically, that's how.

Colonialism, a practice that is inherently so racist and dehumanizing that it turns settlers into oppressors.

Having themselves been the target of racial (ethnic or religious) oppression does not immunize settlers against turning into racist oppressors.

Only a universal recognition of the oneness of us all (the you are I, I am you, we are one) along with solidarity between all peoples can make ours the just and peaceful world that our very survival depends upon.

Robert Herbst is ashamed at the crimes his coreligionists in Israel are perpetrating upon the Palestinian people. Even worse, committing said crimes in the name of all Jews, himself/myself included. I understand how he feels but am long passed the shame phase of mourning (assuming Kubler-Ross's 5 stages (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance) of grief are herein applicable to the betrayal (a type of loss) of a long held and cherished belief, namely, Jewish values. Where to place being ashamed in this ranking? Well, seems to me that shame alone might place the author anywhere between stage 2 and 4. But his writing this article indicates that he's well beyond merely being ashamed, he's reached acceptance. Congratulations Robert, you made it, and for this we are thankful. Please keep reaching out.

Annie, I checked out Segal's website. His 2 state proposal is for a democratic Jewish state and a Palestinian state. Better and simpler if he just called for ending the special relationship. Gonna suggest this to him.

Dr Jerome M Segal, the Baltimore cardiologist who is challenging Israel loyalist Senator Ben Cardin in Maryland's June 26 primary elections is president of the Jewish Peace Lobby. From the material on the the JPL's website I gather that it's a Zionist organization that supports a two state solution (indeed, it has developed its own 2 state plan*) with shared control of Jerusalem.

Assuming Segal and Cardin won't differ much on domestic issues, seems to me that Dr Segal's chances for winning the democratic nomination could very well depend upon how forcefully he separates himself from Sen. Cardin on Israel/Palestine. Don't know if he's up to it but if only he calls for the US govt. to end its special relationship with Israel, that might just do it for him - even though in doing so he would be loudly denounced by AIPAC and the Democratic establishment.

I'm also assuming here that America's unconditional support for Israel is one of those issues that has the potential to infuriate and activate a public whose mood now is demonstrably anti-status quo. Timing, after all, may not be everything but it surely counts for a lot.

Daniel Gordis is correct, 1967 was the transitional point. For me, at least, because prior to that war I'd been kind of a nominal supporter of Israel. Then along came the 1967 War, jolting my senses with all this crap about macho Israel (& what this supposedly represented) vs the dumb and hapless A-rabs. The racist content was unmistakable. Immediately my thoughts were like "Oops, what a sucker I've been", and ever since then I've been a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause. Enough of a supporter, that is, to serve as a volunteer with the Palestinian Red Crescent during the '82 US-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

If the above marks me as a traitor or self-hating Jew, so be it, but from growing up during WWII (thereby, from afar, experiencing the Holocaust, along with, here in America, witnessing Jim Crow), somehow it's turned out that when a decision has to be made re: on whose side, oppressed or oppressor, invariably I side with the oppressed,

Roger Cohen's 'Israel was worth the price the Palestinians had to pay for its establishment because it made Jews around the world safer.'

But no more unbelievable than Madeleine Albright's assertion in 2012 that US policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of 500,000 Iraqi children.

My how glibly, with nary a trace of remorse, genocide's apologists make their case. Seems that carrying out this the most serious crime against humanity comes easily when the perpetrators see their victims as somehow beneath them, the self-designated superior and EXCEPTIONAL ones (ergo, exceptionalism).

Come to think of it, doesn't exceptionalism underlie all genocides? If so, wouldn't this suggest that genocide represents nothing more than exceptionalism carried out to its logical conclusion? What then should we make of this insistence that America is the one and only EXCEPTIONAL nation? Or that Israel too is EXCEPTIONAL? Worrisome, perhaps, considering how many perpetual wars these two nations are waging, not to mention their build-up of nuclear weapons?

But if not EXCEPTIONAL, what then? How about equality - the you are I, I am you, we are one?

Of course Zionism is antisemitic, and for the reasons expressed by Tom Suarez. It falsely implicates all Jews in the crimes perpetrated by Israel upon the Palestinian people, thereby setting up even those of us who openly oppose Israel for possible recrimination, once the tide turns and the public realizes that it's the Palestinian's cause that is just, not the Israeli's.

Meanwhile I wonder if said turnabout might be advanced by way of our utilizing the civil court system to stop Israel/Zionists from insisting that it/they speak and act for all Jews, since this claim not only is false but is injurious to individuals such as Tony Greenstein, Ken Livingston, not to mention myself, who, upon returning from Beirut after the Israel's US supported invasion of Lebanon in 1982, spoke out against Israel and for this effort received death threats. Perhaps a class action suit could be introduced, demanding that Zionists stop intimidating those who oppose Israel and Zionism.

Such a court action would not only expose Zionism for what it is, but allow a historically accurate narrative of Israel/Palestine to be heard.

"Not one idea nor one institution around which Jewish people can and do unite, except Israel{?}" If so, why not forego unity, given that its price is our having to permanently subjugate a native people? Surrendering one's soul for unity, sorry, but that's way too stiff a price. Best we remain dispersed, deeply engaged and well assimilated within the various wonderful societies that have taken us in.

"Maybe the press is this way because it reflects the values of its readers." Some perhaps but unfortunately it's more likely that the media is successful in its brainwashing of the public. Only those of us who get our information from the Internet &/or alternate media have at least a chance to decide for ourselves what's real and what's fake news. Generally speaking, when it's a matter of what's going on in the world outside our borders, the truth is the opposite of media-speak, since on such subjects the media only disseminates information that our government wants us to be exposed to.

"Israel is the self-defined Jewish state strongly supported by the Diaspora elites, hence, Zionism and Israel do, in fact represent real world Jewish values." More accurately they represent the values of Diaspora elites, not those of diaspora non-elites. Some of them, but most can be won over by exposure to the real world of Israeli apartheid and oppression of Palestinians as well as other non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. As for the diaspora elites, their Israel-firstness gonna bring them down.

Whatever it means to be Jewish, it certainly doesn’t include being a slaveolder, which raises the question as to whether Israeli Jews are truly Jewish, what with their occupation of Palestine, the homeland of the Palestinian people, since taking over another people’s land is a form of enslavement. But if not Jews, what? Pretenders, perhaps?

Don't know whether the public of either GB or the USA would care but how about the two recent disclosures of clandestine Zionist collusion with high level government officials in both nations. Here in America we find alleged rapist & rabid Zionist Harvey Weinstein asking Israeli PM Ehud Barak for the name of an Israeli agency that might help him get off the hook on some personal (monkey) business matters (now featured prominently on both msm and the internet). Barack comes up with the Black Box, an organization made up of ex-Mosad agents that apparently specializes in saving the reputations of the wealthy and powerful from assorted scandals and general mayhem. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, International Development Secretary & staunch Zionist Priti Patel - for secretly meeting with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu & other Israeli officials - has just resigned.

The relevance of the shake-up in the Conservative government is that this could lead to its fall, with fresh elections very likely to carry Jeremy Corbyn into 10 Downing Street. And Corbyn remains steadfast in his support of justice for the Palestinian people.

As for the relevance of the Weinstein mess to the Palestinian cause, how is it that he's so closely connected to Israeli leaders that he turns to them when he's in trouble. What else, but that he's an Israel-firster. Israel-firsters on this side of the Atlantic, Israel-firsters across the Atlantic. Might this be show-down time?

Has to do with one's having to decide on whose side, the slave/oppressed/occupied or the slaveholder/oppressor/occupier.

Plus knowing that until the last chain is broken none of us will be free.

What's this got to do with Zionist Israel's occupation of Palestine?

Only that taking over another people's homeland, thereby subjugating its people, is an act of enslavement, the enslaved here being the Palestinians (the indigenous people of Palestine), with the slaveholder, therefore, the Israeli occupiers.

Which brings us back to deciding on whose side, the slave or the slaveholder.

Such a decision depends in part upon one's personal experience as well as the experience, both historical and contemporary, of one's particular group.

The black experience, of course, with slavery and oppression is ongoing.

The Jewish experience with slavery is problematic, based as it is on bronze age tales, but our oppression, especially in Eastern Europe is indisputable,continuing as it did until the end of WW II.

The relevance of these experiences is that those who have been in chains or otherwise persecuted for no other reason than the color of their skin or their religion are more likely to identify with their modern day counterparts, among whom are the Palestinian people.

Said identifying with begets siding with, ergo, Black and Jewish solidarity with the Palestinians in their struggle for freedom and justice, along with their anti-Zionism and support for BDS.

Not all Blacks nor all Jews, but increasing numbers of both. Indeed many Jews who side with the Jewish Zionist occupiers of Palestine are progressive on other issues of freedom, justice and equality. Such individuals,some of whom are regular contributors to this web site, are therefore tagged with the label PEP, progressive on everything but Palestine.

Of course anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism. How could it when Zionism does not equal Judaism? As for the claim that Zionist Israel speaks for all Jews, why then are so many of our youth becoming disillusioned with Israel? And why such rapid growth of organizations such as Jewish voices for peace? Could it be that an apartheid state based on religious/ethnic supremacy is a living contradiction to Jewish concepts of justice and freedom?

The British people will no more fall for all this fake news about Jeremy Corbyn being antisemitic than they did for the fake news during last June's parliamentary elections that labeled him an undeserving and hapless candidate. Brits, especially their youth, are so captivated by Corbyn's domestic proposals that they'll see this fake news for what it is - a desperate attempt by Britain's Zionist lobby to prevent G.B. from going its own way vis-a-vis justice for Palestine. Even more ridiculous, mainstream media's siding with the Lobby against Corbyn. Racing towards its irrelevancy, that's what this represents. Meanwhile, the ascendancy of the Internet and the struggle to keep it open and free of censorship.

How can there be justice for Palestinians at the same time there's Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people? Surely not when justice for Palestinians implies the return of Palestine to its indigenous people. Which renders null and void Illinois Democratic candidate Daniel Biss' statement that he supports justice for Palestinians. He's self-identified now as a Zionist through and through; perhaps an Israel-firster to boot.

Why not Palestine as the na of the , with liberty, justice and equality for all of its inhabitants? Those, that is who are willing to renounce whatever supremacist rights they may have wielded in now nonexistent Israel.

And should Nazi militias take control of America, forcing heretofore reluctant American Jews to flee to Israel (assuming the American Nazis issue them exit permits) does Daniel Gordis actually believe that Israel will be the safe haven that it purports to be? Has he forgotten that Hitler 's intent was not only to establish a judenfrei Germany but a judenfrei world? But perhaps Daniel believes that them Nazis wouldn't dare because Israel's got Nukes?

anti-fascists must confront the violence of fascism with images that demonstrate the stark contrast between fascism and the just and peaceful world. This means absolutely no violence on our part, the menace that is fascism countered with symbols, songs, poetry, chants and short speeches, all illustrative of the what sort of world, were it up to us.

Another reason for the Zionist state's reluctance to strongly criticize. last week's neonazii rampage in Charletsville might have been that it sees opportunity in the rise of fascism for the eventual returning "home" of America's Jewry. After all we are the last remaining significant reservoir of Ashkenazi Jews, preferentially sought, compared to either the Sephardic or Misrahii Jew, desperate, as Israel is, to alter. the demographic balance towards Jews outnumbering Palestinians. Best, then, that Israel hold back on codemning neonazi's in America, lest they prevail and the Zionist enttty finds IT needs to bargain with them.

The only way to make Israel understand that it does not represent Jews worldwide is for the non-Zionist Jews to stay out of the discussion? Is this exclusionary policy to apply not only to non-Zionist but also anti-Zionist Jews such as myself? And this despite Zionism's call for Jews to "return home" clearly being all-inclusive.? Supposedly our remaining out of the discussion will make Israel understand Jews worldwide? What's wrong with this ethnocentric approach is that left out is any discussion of the liberation of the Palestinian people from the yolk of Zionist settler colonialism. Presumably not only Jewish non/anti-Zionists but Jewish supporters of Palestinian liberation are to remain silent re: their religion , the better to make Israel understand that it does not represent worldwide Jewry?

Except Zionist Israel is well aware that American Jewry's bond to Zionist Israel is gradually weakening. Indeed, Israel's most likely factored this into its projections as to what lies ahead.

Instead what it's concerned about is the growth of the Palestinian liberation movement, with BDS leading the way. And while there's remarkable diversity within its ranks, a significant Jewish representation is acknowledged. Zionists' response to this development by branding Jewish anti-Zionists/pro-Palestinians self-haters. But Zionism's real fear here is not so much Jewish opposition to Israel, but the effect this might have on the indifference if not support that American non-Jews (98% of the population) extend towards Israel. This is because the presence of Jews in the Pal. liberation movement will tend to immunize non-Jews against charges of antisemitism that Zionists are sure to unleash - "but how can I be an antisemite when so many Jews are marching with me."

And that's what this nonsense about what Jews can and cannot say re: Israel & Zionism is all about!

The author - The present situation of the state of Israel is that the State ensures that it's Jewish citizens are "safely hated."

But as American Jewry more and more disavow Zionism, will "safely hated" hold in Israel?

And with the Zionist state's leaders insisting that they represent Jews everywhere, even those who are anti-Zionist/pro-Palestinian, as the resistance to Israel's enslavement of the Palestinian people grows Zionist Israel well may succeed in in re-creating a world that's against Jews, not only in Israel but everywhere else. Although this might lead to the realization of Zionism's founding vision re: Israel, the ultimate safe haven for the gathering in of all Jews, could a Jew really feel safe in a nation that had earned the enmity of the rest of the world? Earned it by way of its enslavement of the Palestinian people and its steadfast refusal to set them free.

Alternatively, before the above plays out, the U.S. government will have come to its senses about the true nature of the Zionist enterprise, and will no longer play the roll of Israel's grand protector and benefactor. For this to happen the anti-Zionist/pro-Palestinian movement will have to expand such that it can persuade the U.S. government to support justice for the Palestinian people, whereupon, alone now in the world Israel will have but two options - 1, what with its arsenal of nuclear weapons take on the world en route to Armageddon or (even more likely) a second Masada; or 2, settle peacefully with the Palestinians.

Which way will it go? I'm confident that the BDS movement will prevail and that Palestine will be free.

So Jews who support justice for the Palestinian people are Capos, and never mind that the Capos ended up in the same crematoria as all the other Jews and non-Jews held in the Nazi slave camps. The similarity between Nazis and Zionists is that both believe themselves to be superior to the people (Jews and Palestinians, respectively) that they are enslaving. Evidently In their minds these feelings of superiority justify committing the most heinous of all crimes, genocide. While said feeling of superiority may allow Zionists such as Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to plead not guilty to the charge of having been an accessory to genocide, when they are tried at the International Court of Justice, I doubt that the jury will see it their way.

As for us Jews who support the cause of justice for the Palestinian people, their liberation from the chains of Zionism will be our reward, realizing as we do that one is either on the side of the slave or the slaveholder (no matter the slaveholder be of the same religion/ethnicity/nationality as us), and that until the last chain is broken, none of us will be free. And unlike how history looks upon the Capos we will be seen as freedom-fighters!

The author and Ingrid Gassner chose the word apartheid for their strategic framework of analysis, rather than either settler colonialism or ethnic cleansing. She states that deploying settler colonialism to their framework would have been inappropriate, since these words apply only to the occupied West Bank (even though Israel was created by way of the ethnic cleansing of its indigenous people), whereas apartheid accurately describes the situation in both Israel and the West Bank. But, historically speaking, so do settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing, which means that the authors framework of analysis is incomplete or watered down. Was this done because they perceived that the word apartheid somehow would be less disconcerting to what seems to have been their mostly Zionist audiences? If so, that's a mistake, because a watered down analysis and narrative of what's been happening this past century between the River and the Sea will never impact people to the extent required. If, that is, we're "to build the sources of power that will push Israel to recognize Palestinian self-determination and to make reparations." Nothing but the complete story will bring this about.

Since one is either on the side of the slave or the slave owner, and since Israel's occupation of Palestine enslaves its indigenous people, the Palestinians ( colonizing another people's land being a form of enslavement), it behooves those of us homo sapiens (regardless of age, religion or nationality) professing to side with the slave to stand up in support of justice for the Palestinian people. To do anything less is to expose the lie - that, in fact, one sides not with the slave but with the slave owner. Remember too that until the last chain is broken, none of us will be free.

The fear, hatred and violence that Israeli colonizers express towards Palestinians are reminiscent of the mostly European settler conquests of indigenous peoples in the the Americas, Africa and Asia. Seems that stealing another people's land, then having to live among the conquered, brings out the worst in us humans. It's as if any expression of empathy towards the natives for what they, the settlers, have wrought upon them, would be an acknowledgement of the native's humanity, therein putting the settler enterprise itself at risk. After all one can be either a humanitarian or a settler, but not both at the same time. Thus it is that whatever intentions the settler may have held, re: harmonious relations with the native, almost always give way to the imperatives of maintaining his/her ill-gotten way of life.

After the 1967 War what turned me from being a nominal supporter of Israel to advocating justice for the Palestinian people was the racist propaganda that depicted Israeli Jews as superheroes and Arabs as bumbling pretenders. Cognitive dissonance awakened me to the impossibility of simultaneously supporting racist Israel and believing in the oneness of humanity.

Nothing would satisfy Israeli leaders more than an outbreak of lethal antisemitism in the West, particularly in the U.S. with its 5.3 million mostly Ashkenazi Jews. Should such happen expect Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to say something like "Jews of the diaspora come home to Israel, the only nation where your safety is guaranteed." More or less what he said after that January 2015 terrorist attack on a kosher restaurant in Paris. And he could care less that it's Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people that stoke attacks against diaspora Jews, as attested to by the sharp rise in such attacks each time Israel makes war upon Gaza. As far as Netanyahu is concerned if it were possible, on the one hand, to prevent attacks upon diaspora Jews by supporting justice for Palestine, or, on the other hand, to seriously endanger diaspora Jews by maintaining or even tightening the grip Israel has on the Palestinian people, he would choose the latter - because he is faced not only with the accounting of these diaspora Jews, but also with the survival of Israel as a Jewish state.* Besides, think of all the Ashkenazi who'd be looking towards the so-called safe haven.

*Paraphrasing Ben Gurion's statement (1938) - 'If it were possible to save all children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eratz Ysrael, I would choose the latter - because we are faced not only with the accounting of these {Jewish} children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish people.'

Yes, successfully opposing Trump calls for a united front against fascism and Zionism, but beyond that it demands a vision of what sort of world, were it up to us (the 99%, that is) to decide. And that moment will arrive but only if we remain united, initially in pursuit of a few universal goals such as workplace and retirement security, medicare for all, protecting mother earth, along with demilitarization. And as we gain momentum in our quest, behold, that just and peaceful world coming towards us.

such that
re: palestine/israel
if one is for the slave
to be true to one's convictions
one must side with the palestinian
after all
it's her/his land that's being colonized
colonization being a form of enslavement

understanding, of course
that until the last chain is broken
none of us will be free

I am as disgusted about democrats joining in on today's anti-Russia hysteria as I was during the anti-Communist crusades of the WW II era, whereby overwhelmingly democratic Congresses (except for 1946-8, when the Republicans held majorities in both the House & Senate) established and supported the infamous HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) in its witch hunting crusades against Communists and so-called fellow travelers. What we're seeing now is a defeated democratic presidential candidate who happens to be a war hawk joining forces with like-minded hawks from the two major parties in a last ditch effort to prevent President-elect Donald Trump from pursuing a serious effort at detente with Russia, thereby giving peace a chance.

Yes, I know, Trump is awful on domestic issues, but on the issue of detente with Russia, how can a leftist not support him?

Since Congress will do nothing to alter the status quo re Palestine/Israel unless pushed hard by the public, the Brooking poll suggests that we're approaching a critical mass of people sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. What this means is that, along with BDS, an all out & sustained mobilization aimed at pressuring members of Congress (& the President) to rethink their policies vis-a-vis the Middle East just might bear fruit. For maximum effectiveness the mobilization should begin asap so as to ensure that soon-to-be President Donald Trump can't relegate Palestine/Israel to the back-burner.

On January's inauguration day massive rallies throughout the land would be a shot fired across the bow of the ship of state, warning its commander-in-chief Donald Trump to cease and desist from turning our great nation into a blight upon the earth. Or else!

Yes, the counter-revolution is intensifying, but aren't the conservatives always in a counter-revolutionary mode? Except, that is, for the three decades following WW II when labor unions had a say and our government wasn't entirely corporate owned? As for the Arab Spring, in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, whether or not these were brought about by CIA covert actions (as per Guatamala and Iran in the early fifties and dozens of nations since), most certainly the extinguishing of those bright shining examples of the human potential was carried out, compliments of western intelligence services, Actually, I can't think of a single counter-revolution over the past century that wasn't made in the U.S.A. &/or some other western nation(s).

Some will say that the masses are too easily fooled by counter-revolutionaries, with Donald Trump's recent election but the latest example. Which begs the question counter to what revolution. Surely there wasn't one in the U.S.A. prior to last week's election, because the regime of Barack Obama, along with that of every president (perhaps with the exception of FDR) who preceded him - at least during my lifetime -at their core have been counter- , not revolutionary. Differences between these regimes have been only in degree and intensity of the elite 0.1% assaults upon the 99% of us commoners. As for the two candidates in last week's election, the contest between twiddle-de-dee and twiddle-de-dum, since both are counter-revolutionaries, when its counter vs counter - Revolution? No chance!

So do we give up, throw in the white towel? Certainly not when perpetual war + global warming = doomsday, and by the end of this or the next century. But revolution? Exactly How? To be decided by the people united in pursuit of peace on earth and goodwill to all living beings. There is no other way.

The antiwar left should immediately press president-elect Trump to make good on his expressed wish that America team up with Russia to defeat the Islamic State. By cooperating in this effort the two countries would be positioned to work together towards ending the Syrian War, something that would have been impossible had warhawk Clinton been elected. And what more ego-satisfying way for Trump to launch his presidency than by meeting with Vladimir Putin to discuss ending a war that just happened to have been promoted by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Yes, he'd catch hell from the neo-cons/libs for dealing with someone they've been demonizing, but what the heck, most of them backed Clinton anyway. Moreover, should he and his co-peacemaker Vladimir Putin succeed in ending the war in Syria, who's to say that they couldn't do the same vis-a-vis the Israeli occupation of Palestine. After all, our president is more autonomous in foreign policy as compared to domestic policy, so when left activists challenge him on Syria, he has the authority to act. Whether or not he does follow through on his expressed willingness to meet with Putin will inform us on his willingness (or ability) to make good on his stated opposition to regime change and unnecessary wars, positions that the antiwar Left also supports.

Following the same rationale, the Left should press the President-elect to make good on his campaign vow to leave Medicare and Social Security untouched, since here too we can support him, and he may need our support.

Neocon support for Hillary Clinton, despite her espousing domestic policies (raising minimum wage, free or at least cheaper higher education, Social Security & Medicare) that they abhor, shows that Empire, not domestic issues is their paramount concern. Seems that the Neocon looks upon opposing global hegemony as the cardinal sin, whereas , opposition to free market dogma is a lesser and pardonable sin. Perhaps their tolerance for Hillary's domestic positions (better, poses) is because they realize that even if she initially makes good on these, before long an expanding empire will drain the economy, such that, she'll be telling us something like, "Sorry folks, but after we pay for the weapons and for our troops there just won't be any money left to provide for the common good."

What might have saved lives was for there to have been no Transfer Agreement between Zionist organizations and Nazi Germany. This agreement was instrumental in breaking the anti-Nazi boycott of 1933, a boycott that was viewed by the German government as a threat to its fragile economy.

How will the movement for justice in Palestine react to Nakba denier and Israel firster turned dual loyalist Jeffrey Goldberg's acknowledgement that the American Jewish community and the Israeli Jewish community are now "two ships passing in the night?" At a time when BDS is steadily gaining ground, one can anticipate little or no reaction, other than inviting disillusioned (with Israel) American Jews to join said movement.

Israel's occupation of Palestine and brutal treatment of Palestinians - crimes committed on behalf of all Jews, or so Israel's leaders tell us - is what's behind any rise in antisemitism. Indeed, once there's justice for the Palestinian people, look for expressions of antisemitism to fall precipitously.

At a time when Zionism is becoming a bad word what does Goldberg's switching from Zionist to anti-Zionist imply, other than he's a glory-seeking opportunist? No matter, though, should his turnabout on Palestine help deliver justice to the Palestinian people. But credit those of us - the Palestinian people first and foremost - who all along have participated in this struggle. They (We) are the ones whose steadfastness is just now beginning to pay off . Without this mass movement, there wouldn't be a bandwagon for opportunists such as Goldberg to climb aboard.

Since Zionism does not = Judaism, anti-Zionism is not anti-Jewish. That's not to say that an anti-Zionist can't also be anti-Jewish, but that anti-Zionism itself has to do with opposition to the Jewish colonization of Palestine, not to a bias against Jews. No more, that is, than opposition to formerly apartheid South Africa was a marker (which it wasn't) for anti-white sentiment.

Although Zionists see the worldwide boycott of settlements as the equivalent of the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in the thirties, today's boycott is more analogous to the 1933 Jewish-led worldwide boycott of Nazi Germany, one that might have succeeded had Zionist organizations not negotiated The Transfer Agreement with the Nazis for the transfer of 50,000 Jews and $100 million of their assets to Palestine in exchange for ending the boycott. Further similarity between the '33 and today's boycott is that the ultimate goal of both was/is to prevent a genocide - of Jews in '33, of Palestinians today. Considering the fact that but for the Transfer Agreement Nazi Germany might have died in its infancy, one has to wonder, what the fate of the Palestinian people will be, should BDS be crushed on account of Zionist opposition? Zionists sure appear to be equal opportunity genociders, either as enablers as they were in '33, or as the real McCoy, as they are (incrementally, at least) in Palestine today.
Oh that BDS succeeds!

Halevi says that there's virtually no debate in Israel about the Palestinians. If so might this be because not many Israelis are willing to pay the price - ostracization, verbal or even physical abuse - that dissenters in jingoistic societies face should they be brave enough to speak out? And even if they do speak out, will they heard, what with the media in such societies closed to dissenters. In Nazi Germany, for example, how many people stood up to defend the victims of antisemitic thuggery. Same goes for white dissenters in the days of apartheid South Africa, for anti-racist as well as antiwar activists right now in America, although here, so far at least, the suppression isn't as pronounced as in the above-mentioned societies. What's the antidote to such massive suppression? Certainly not unity in pursuit of jingoistic goals but mass rebellions to transform run amok militaristic societies, particularly ones such as Israel and the U.S. with their pretensions of being exceptional, and indispensable . For American Jews what this implies is not falling for the Israel uber justice racist line, but instead standing up for justice and equality, here in America as well as everywhere else, Palestine/Israel included.

Hmm, Zionists publicly calling for Israel to be forever majority Jewish, "better" yet, purely Jewish? Shades of the demand by some racists that upon birth so-called anchor babies not automatically be granted U.S. citizenship, lest America turn into a melanin rich majority/white minority nation. Too late, of course, unless Trump wins in November and calls for a constitutional amendment that makes such babies non-citizens. He'll have to move quickly, though, since the percentage of whites is steadily dropping. But without a white majority what'll America be like? Same as Palestine/Israel without a Jewish majority. More just, peaceful and loving.

The Green Party's Jill Stein and the Republican Party's Gary Johnson haven't been invited to participate in the forthcoming debates. One reason for shutting them out may be that both nominees might speak out forcefully against this 38 billion aid package, which, given the above poll results, very well might peal off voters from both the major party nominees, but more so from the Democratic standard bearer. If polls suggest this is happening, Trump might change his mind & oppose the aid, but on this issue the public might not let him get away with it. Clinton, however, is so tangled up with the Israel Lobby that even if she came to her senses vis-a-vis Palestine-Israel, no way would the public believe her.

As someone who was a volunteer with the Palestine Red Crescent Society during the 1982 U.S.-backed Israeli siege of West Beirut, this time of the year always carries me back to those tumultuous days. The booming sound of missiles being fired from offshore Israeli warships, along with the mind-numbing experience of a of car bomb exploding outside one's residence are moments that simply won't let go. Same goes for the sight of a 11 story apartment bldg that had been flattened by a new type of ordnance (the vacuum or thermobaric bomb) that Israel was testing for its efficacy. Very effective, indeed, at least for wiping out civilians, as attested to by Yusuf, a Palestinian who lived in one of the apartments that had been destroyed, the only survivor out of an extended family of 11. Lying in his hospital bed, "No one's left", was what he told me.

But beyond and above all the nightmares of war what sticks with me the most was/is - the unshakable spirit of the Palestinian people. Another and younger Yusuf exemplifies this spirit. Having suffered extensive first and second degree burns from an Israeli bomb, he was bedridden in an AUB dormitory that had been temporarily converted into a burn unit. He was febrile and somewhat confused, but shortly after several visitors (myself included) entered his room, he somehow willed himself to stand up. The nurse (a Dutch volunteer), fearing for his safety, asked him to return to his bed.

"What are you doing?", the nurse asked.

"Got to get up and help my people", his reply.

Finally the nurse coaxed him to return to his bed.

Could this be real? A young man who probably wasn't long for this world, his last thoughts being of his people.? Yet it is this spirit that explains why the Palestinians will never give up their quest to regain their homeland.

Does either major party presidential candidates realize that the first one to come out against this 38 billion giveaway to Israel wins in November? Especially so if she or he links her/his opposition to said giveaway to the redirection of the 38 billion dollars to life enhancing pursuits such as tuition free higher education. Come on candidates, there's a presidency to be won; besides, you have nothing to lose except the hold that Israel-firsters have on you, and good riddance!

The Palestinian Youth Movement's expression of solidarity with Native Americans in their struggle against the Dakota Access Pipeline is inspirational in that it speaks to a basic truth, that until the last chain is broken none of us will be free, yet once that last chain be broken, ah then, free at last.

Severing the U.S-Israel special relationship is a vital task for American anti-Zionists. Weakening AIPAC can help bring this about because fear of being labeled an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel has silenced too many supporters of Palestinian liberation. Once they realize that they're not alone in criticizing Israel, they'll consider coming out of the closet and joining the pro-Palestinian movement in pressuring Washington to end its special relationship with Israel. And as I've stated several times before on MW, once that relationship is severed, Israel's days will be numbered. As for JVP's anti-Zionism being controversial, not only does it favor ending our government's unconditional support for Israel, it's a staunch supporter of BDS. Seems to me that those two efforts alone signify a measure of commitment to Palestinian liberation.

Americans for Peace Now can help bring justice to Palestine more effectively by renouncing its membership in AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, instead allying itself with anti-Zionist organizations such as JVP and US Campaign to End the Occupation. Surely it must see the contradiction between its membership in AIPAC and both its opposition to the occupation and its attempts to deny that AIPAC speaks for all Jews. Switch sides, Peace Now, thereby diminishing AIPAC, at the same time advancing the cause of justice for Palestine.

At a time when the international Palestine liberation movement is gaining momentum, up steps Israel-firster Jeffrey Goldberg, in his role as the great distractor, trying to divert our attention towards rumblings of a split inside Israeli Jewish society. Just the moment to send in Bill Clinton, he says, and never mind that Clinton failed miserably at Camp David when he was president. Perhaps Goldberg thinks that anti-Zionists, led by him into believing that Israel's about to come apart, will call off BDS; instead waiting for the white Messiah BC to work his magic? No way! BDS is but the opening salvo in the worldwide effort to isolate the Zionist settler state Israel. Its advocates won't be distracted by petty spats within the Zionist hierarchy.

Here in the U.S. of A. the potentially most effective way for the pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist movement to help transform the Middle East is by educating the public to the fact that our government's unconditional support for Israel is the main reason They* hate us. That's not to say that the multiple other wars (Afghanistan, Iraq ,Yemen, Somalia) that America has been waging in the Middle East don't contribute to said hatred, but that. at least partly, our government engages in these wars under the misguided belief that by doing so it is protecting Israel. In the short term, perhaps, but what a steep price - in material as well as human lives - the public is and will continue to pay.

How to turn the public on Palestine and the Middle East? By emphasizing the connection between U.S. support for Israel and the anger and hatred that renders the region's youth susceptible to appeals from Jihadists that young people join them in defeating the invaders and other infidels; by reminding the public that Osama bin Laden made it quite clear that U.S. support for Israel was a key reason for 9/11, and by hammering away at the fact that the Iraq War that took more than 5000 American lives (not to mention several hundred thousand Iraqis'), was undertaken with Israel edging America on; same goes for the Syrian war.

Underlying the effort to sever the U.S-Israel special relationship is the belief that without this support Israel's days (not its people's) will be numbered.

and what good have national anthems done?
have they protected anyone from drone strikes?
have they helped bring about a just and peaceful world?
Oh, but they lift one's spirit
make us proud to be an American
unleash tears
make life worthwhile
but at the same time
render us oblivious to
the body counts from these perpetual wars
the never ending racism at home
since once a chorus of "the land of the free and the home of the brave"
casts its magic spell
we're lost in blissful reverie
a momentary high
so utterly inappropriate
ghastly, actually
considering
what is being inflicted upon us
upon the world
in our names
by our government
meanwhile, we're in this trance
which is why quarterback Colin Kaepernick wouldn't stand up for our national anthem
it's like at the line of scrimmage
to wake us up
to break the trance
he's audibilizing a new play
telling us that when America becomes the land that it claims to be
with liberty, equality and justice for all
then he'll stand up
but until then he'll remain seated
and so should we

The just person always side with the slave, never with the slave-owner. Re: Palestine/Israel the Palestinians are the slaves, since it's their land that's been forcefully taken from them by Jewish settlers, confiscating another people's land being an act of enslavement. It is for this reason that many of us American Jews are participating in the movement for justice in Palestine, a movement made up of people from a diversity of nationalities, religions and political persuasions. For us the fact that co-religionists claim to be colonizing Palestine on behalf of all Jews, compels us to participate in this liberation movement. The history of our people, of all people informs us that until the last chain is broken, none of us will be free.

Demonizing Russia is an easy proposition for the war hawks, what with most Americans born from 1917 to 1994 having been bombarded with anti-Russian/anti-Communist propaganda. Sure, with the breakup of the USSR there was some easing in said demonizing, but empire's propagandists had to be besides themselves with joy when they were told to get back to portraying Russia/Putin as evil and threatening, since to accomplish this all they need do is play an updated version of the same tune re: alleged Russian treachery that they deployed during the existence of the Soviet Union. Or so they may think, but will it work this time around?

ethnocentrism - having or based on the idea that your own group or culture is better or more important than others (source: Merriam-Webster's Learner Dictionary) -

syllogism: some Jews are ethnocentric bigots. Jerry is a Jew. Therefore Jerry is a bigot.

As for Liel Liebovitz's accusation that in exchange for financial rewards Gideon Levy peddles stories about Israel's crimes, here Liebovitz must be desperate , because his characterization of Levy as someone who'd sell out his people is awful close to the antisemite's stereotypical depiction of the perfidious Jew. Shylock comes to mind. Hmm, resorting to antisemitic stereotyping, what does this tell us about Liebovitz? Self-hating Jew, perhaps?

Many if not most people who have felt the sting of discrimination, be it based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age or class, come to understand that until the last chain is broken none of us will be free. This explains how it is that there are Africans supporting Palestinian liberation., Palestinians supporting African liberation and Jews supporting both liberation movements as well as their own liberation, if by that one means freeing an individual from the moral dilemma that Zionism inflicts on its adherents. A dilemma that precludes the Zionist Jew from identifying with the plight of the Palestinian. - "But how can one identify with an inferior human being?" By discarding, if but for a moment, that facade of superiority and imagining instead what being a Palestinian in Gaza would be like., thereby allowing previously forbidden connections between two peoples to take shape. Once seriously undertaken, moral dilemma resolved. Simple as that!

The characterization of BLMers and anti-Zionists as revolutionaries may bother Stephen Low, but if revolution has to do with turning a society upside down, seems to me that the characterization fits the reality of Palestine/Israel. But as Phil notes in his post, not all revolutions are bloody. After all, isn't the goal of of BDS that of a bloodless transformation of P/I? Where I disagree with Phil in his insistence that changing the American-Jewish mind is the most important step towards bringing about this bloodless revolution. This might be the case if there were no pressure of time. But with time running out the aim of anti-Zionist revolutionaries should be to turn the general public against our government's unconditional support for Israel. In this effort American Jews can be helpful in that our presence among the revolutionaries will tend to dispel the Zionist charge that anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, thereby rendering the public more receptive to the specifics of how it is that America's unfaltering support for Israel has led to so much violence, death and destruction in the Middle East. Open-mindedness being the prerequisite to discovering the truth, once the public realizes that the truth re: P/I is the opposite of what they've been taught, the revolution will have begun.

The NYT won't cover Jewish anti=Zionism because its editors realize that once the general public learns how many Jews reject Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that he speaks for all Jews, the fear of being being called an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew for supporting justice for Palestine will vanish - "How can I be an anti-Semite (or self--hating Jew) when so many Jews are with me in this movement for justice?" Next those who previously held back from criticizing Israel (closet anti-Zionists) for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic will be asking what Israel's role in other Middle East conflicts has been, and how much their prior silence on these issues contributed to so much death and destruction? As this begins to take place throughout our land, Israel's (not its people's) days will be numbered. Empire too will be in serious trouble - for having provided Israel with unconditional support for more than half a century. The public will want to know how this relationship came about, who & what's to blame, and there'll be demands that those responsible be put on trial. Fear of such an outcome is what keeps the NYT from reporting on the rapidly growing Jewish pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel/anti-Zionist movement. Strange their fear, because the longer the Times' editors/publishers persevere in ignoring said movement, the worse the outcome for them. But it's not too late, if only they open up and spill the beans - about, Zionism, Israel and our nation's role in the conflagrations afflicting the Middle East, not to mention the whopper the NYT's propagates about Israel's leaders speaking for all Jews.

What's this about reading the torah so as to root our children so deeply in our own Jewish identity that when we support justice for Palestine we cannot be excommunicated? Sounds like Peter Beinart is trying to shrink the ranks of pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist Jews, because for many if not most Jews, nothing could be more onerous than having to discipline oneself so as to take in the gibberish of unknown authors from a bronze age culture. Get serious, Peter, cause it ain't gonna happen. Excommunication or not, Jewish supporters of the Palestinian cause will not be deterred. Nor were white anti-apartheid members of the African National Congress deterred by the enmity directed at them by other whites.

Isn't it more accurate to say the Jewish elite's tradition of being wary of populists, rather than, as Phil puts its, the "Jewish tradition of being wary of populists", After all even during the days of Europe's shtetls, how many Jews were in positions of power, compared to those working in the fields or scraping out a living in small towns? True, until recently most Jews, non-elite as well as elite, have sided with Zionist Israel. That's still the case but the rapid growth of anti-Zionist organizations such as Jewish Voices for Peace suggests that show-down time may not be far off. What's more the Jewish elite's fear of populism is shared by the non-Jewish elite's fear of same, perhaps not on the issue if P/I but on other issues (income disparity, racism, cost of education and health care, global warming, etc etc) where the 99% (especially its youth and minorities) is challenging the 1%.

As BDS tightens the screws on Israel no surprise that the racist state responds by resorting to the old saw that the best defense is a good offense. Unfortunately for Israel the offense it chooses is that of saying we're not the racists, you BDS'ers are; racist antisemites, that is, for falsely labeling us colonizers and practitioners of apartheid, Unfortunately here, because the evidence supporting the charge that Israelis are colonizing Palestine and enforcing apartheid on its people, the Palestinians, is overwhelming. Which puts Israel in the awkward position of having to recite the specific accusations that BDS is making in order to deny them. But in doing this Israel will be making the case for its opponents. Sooner rather than later Israel will find that its strategy has stoked public interest in what's really happening re: Palestine/Israel. And once this happens, game over, farewell, goodbye, so long, apartheid state.

As America and its allies face the blowback from the wars that Israel-firsters have promoted in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, it should be clear by now that these I-F'ers are at least partly responsible for the mass murders in Orlando, Paris, Brussels and Ankara. For had they put the interests of America, not to mention the rest of the world, before the interests of the settler-state Israel, there'd have been no Afghanistan war, no Iraq war, no Libya war, no Syria war. And without said wars, no blowback! Just think of it, history shaped by a tiny nation of six million people (80% Jews), along with its mostly Jewish I-F'er U.S. supporters. Antisemitism? Only if nothing is done about this.

They may aim to raise young Jews to be progressive on everything except Palestine (PEP), but what's happening is that their children are learning that regardless of the nationality, ethnicity or religion of the colonizer, colonization = racism. Knowledge that can transform them into being progressive on everything including Palestine (PIP). And once this awakening occurs, considering the weight of hypocrisy that's being exposed, there's no turning back.

Netanyahu is but the latest Israeli PM to advance the myth about one nation between the river and the sea. Indeed, it should be evident by now that what's holding Israel back from completing its ethnic cleansing of Palestine isn't the particular makeup of its government, but concern for the effect that such a crime would have upon its special relationship with America. In other words the players may change, but the name of the game, colonialism, stays the same. And so it has been since Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. Until, that is, the natives rise up and liberate themselves from their colonizers.

Given the well known corrupting influence of power, rather than chastising American Blacks for some of its leaders perhaps having failed the test of virtue (ie power), seems to me that the fundamental progressive challenge remains how to deliver power to the people such that it's so fairly distributed that no one's virtue is tested.

1) Since Israel is a major cause of hatred towards Jews around the world, they should be wary of considering it to be their 'insurance policy' (ie safe haven) when the going gets tough.

2) If all Jews become identified by an inevitable connection to Israel then Israel becomes their greatest peril."

Specifically, said peril is that of Israel tightly packed with 16 million Jews, most of whom will have fled there consequent to Israel's having incited virulent worldwide antisemitism with its Palestinian genocide, a crime against humanity that Israel will say was done in the name of all Jews. Won't matter whether this claim is true or not, since Jews who opposed Israel's crimes as well as those who supported them will be forced - so intense will be the hatred - to run for their lives.

But in a world bent on revenge, how safe will the so-called safe haven be?

for sure
absolutely
no denying it
the tens, hundreds of thousands
even millions
killed, maimed, displaced
in exchange for ridding Iraqis of demon
saddam hussein
syria of demon bashar assad
"yes, it was worth it"
says u.s diplomat madeleine albright
speaking not for the Iraqi or the syrian people
but for empire usa

Soundly based, too, considering the fact that the Jewish-settler colonization of Palestine accounts for most of today's antsemitism

This is so not only because history has discredited settler colonialism, but because Palestine today is a living example of the horrors that settler conquest bestows upon native peoples.

Perhaps Israel is no worse in this regard than the many settler colonizations that took place over the past 5 centuries. Israel's "misfortune" is that its crimes are played out before billions of people, compliments of modern communication technology. Who knows what the world would look like today had the Conquistadores been faced with such instant revelations?

Yet Israel & its supporters, rather than asking themselves "what are we doing wrong that the world's turned against us", cling to the illusion that "they hate us because we're Jewish." Yeh, and the worldwide opposition to settler colonialism in South Africa was attributable to hatred of Whites and not to the recognition by most people that colonialism = racism, and therefore must go?

What is there about settler colonialism that riles people up? Well, it being a form of enslavement, its existence forces us to decide, on which side, the slave (ie. the Palestinian) or the slave-owner (ie. the Jewish settler). Most of us, of course, side with the slave. Why? Perhaps has something to do with the "there but for go I", or, perhaps the realization (conscious or otherwise) that none of us will be free until the last chain is broken.

And this, not antisemitism, is why the world's against the settler state Israel. Simple and as basic as that. Nothing to do with antisemitism, which, unfortunately is something that Israel and its supporters won't dare consider. They take that up and the walls come tumbling down.

That's not to say that there aren't at least a few anti-Semites who'll try to jump aboard justice for Palestine movements such as BDS. Except that a few rotten apples do not a mass movement spoil, especially when its members know that opposing one form of racism (settler racism) with another (antisemitism) is a recipe for disaster.

Indeed, with the dissolution of the state of Israel (not its people), the amount of antisemitism in the world would be reduced to a size that could easily be flushed down a toilet.

Nothing will do more to lessen whatever antisemitism still exists in America than a widening of the deep and growing fissure within the Jewish community on Israel-Palestine. By shattering the belief that there's unity among Jews on this issue, the general public will feel less inclined to keep silent out of concern that criticizing Israel might be looked upon as an act of antisemitism - "How can I be an anti-Semite when so many Jews are saying the same thing?" Indeed, the "liberating" effect of anti-Zionist Jews (and newly formed anti--Zionist organizations such as Jewish Voices for Peace)) on the public's willingness to speak out on I-P may be the most important aspect of the split within the Jewish community. And the reason this development will reduce antisemitism is that the awakening of the public on the I-P issue has the potential of ending America's unconditional support for the colonial settler state Israel, and without said support, Israel will have to get serious about justice for Palestine. Now once Palestine is free, antisemitism will be reduced to a size that can be flushed down a toilet, and then no more energy need be wasted on such nonsense as establishing a safe haven for Jews - because the earth will have become that safe haven, not only for Jews but for all people everywhere.

Once significant numbers of settlers decide to emigrate, will the outward flow turn into a stampede? That's what happened 40 years ago in Mozambique, after Africans there won their independence from Portugal, as within 2 years only a few thousand whites remained out of a pre-independence population of 450,000 mostly Portuguese settlers (Wikipedia). To date this hasn't happened in South Africa, although since 1995 when the African National Congress took power, approximately 800, 000 out of 5,200,000 whites have emigrated. It should be noted that in Mozambique the settlers were more or less kicked out, whereas in South Africa they have been encouraged to stay; suggesting, perhaps, that how fast Jewish settlers take off for other parts may depend upon how welcomed they'll be in liberated Palestine.

Don't put personal morality above loyalty to family is what police association officials preach to the cop who decides to publicly disclose a fellow officer's criminal transgressions, thereby deviating from the so-called blue code of silence. And this is the mentality that Peter Beinart hopes to foster in the Jewish community? Never mind the mass murdering of Palestinians being perpetrated by Jewish settlers in Palestine, cause it's tribal loyalty that counts? And what is Beinart's perversion of personal responsibility to be called, the "Jew code of silence?"

As for Israel's using BDS so as to enhance its mantra of victimhood, despite this deceit, judging by the growth in the number of individuals and organizations committing to its goals, BDS continues to expand, not to mention the increasing public awareness that the underlying cause of the Israel-Palestine conflict is Jewish settler colonialism. Slowly, yet inexorably, we shall overcome.

Except Haitians too seemed to be a defeated people in 1967 when I visited them, but by the mid-eighties they had awakened to the drumbeat of a liberation movement led by Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who not long thereafter in a landslide election became their president.

Similarly Algerians appeared to be a defeated people after "The Battle of Algiers" but a few years later they rose up and tossed out the French occupiers.

Same goes for Palestinians. Sure, a "snapshot" taken of them right now might reveal what looks like a defeated people,
but continuous filming could just as well reveal a revolution in the making. Suggesting that seems to be, appears to be and looks like are not equivalents of actually are.

What does the "snapshot" miss? Only the ongoing history of people engaged in continuous liberation struggles, Haitians for over two centuries, Algerians for eight years and Palestinians for about a century.

Come on Norman, you may feel defeated and are giving up on the struggle, but the Palestinians, although undoubtedly discouraged, rest assured that when the right moment arrives, they'll be ready.

Why is the narrator astonished at the connection made in the U.S. between blacks/other minorities and Palestinians?

Especially since the victim of racist prejudice almost reflexively tends to identify/connect with other victims of racism

Has he personally never felt the sting of racist insults?

Yet many people who have never been on the receiving end of racism are able to connect with victims of racism by saying to themselves, "there but for go I."

Could it be that he has experienced racism but his capacity to identify/connect with others afflicted by this type of hatred was blunted by life in an apartheid society? After all, even in apartheid South Africa, there were a few Africans who sided with their "masters."

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.

Sign up for Mondoweiss List

There are now two ways to get Mondoweiss delivered directly to your inbox! Sign up for a daily digest of every story we publish or a weekly collection of highlights picked by Mondoweiss staff to stay up to date with our independent coverage of events in Israel/Palestine.